CAT/C/63/DR/698/2015 Advance unedited version
1.1
The complainants are Z.K. and A.K., mother and son, Russian nationals of Chechen
ethnicity, born in 1971 and 1997 respectively. They are subject to deportation to the Russian
Federation, following the rejection of their asylum application in Switzerland. The
complainants assert that their rights under article 3 of the Convention will be violated if
Switzerland proceeds with their deportation. Switzerland made the declaration under article
22 of the Convention on 2 December 1986. The complainants are represented by counsel,
Stephanie Motz.
1.2
On 2 September 2015, the Committee, acting through its Rapporteur on new
complaints and interim measures requested the State party not to expel the authors to the
Russian Federation while their complaint was being considered by the Committee.
The facts as presented by the complainants
2.1
Ms. Z.K. (the first complainant) and her son1 Mr. A.K. (the second complainant) are
Russian nationals of Chechen ethnicity and Muslim. The first complainant divorced in 20002
and married for a second time in 2007 to Mr. A.D. In 2008, the second husband of the
complainant was arrested and accused of belonging to the Chechen rebel movement. The
complainant has had no news from her husband since his arrest. She alleges that her
husband’s brother was detained during one month and interrogated about her husband’s
whereabouts.3 Approximately one month after the husband’s arrest, the military also started
to regularly search the complainants’ house looking for weapons and Chechen militants. 4
2.2
In June 2012, the deputy commander of a battalion named Jusup5allegedly recognized
the complainant at a coffee shop in Grozny where she used to work as a waitress. He asked
her about her husband and wanted to get information about her husband’s militant friends
and their activities, as well as about the clients of the coffee shop. He wanted to know who
had ties to the rebel group and to drug gangs. The complainant informed Jusup that she had
no such information. The complainant states that Jusup waited for her until the coffee shop
closed at around 22:00 and forced her into his car threatening her with a gun. He asked her
again for information and then brought her to an alleyway where he hit her and raped her. He
then threw her out of the car near her home. The complainant claims that Jusup did the same
to her approximately 10 times. The second time he attacked her, he showed up at her home.
He knocked the door at around 23:00 and asked her to come with him. She informed him that
she couldn’t leave her mother who was sick and her son, but he forced her to go with him.
On 28 December 2012, Jusup brought the complainant to an apartment where there were
three men and a woman. Jusup had to leave because he got a phone call and asked them to
keep the complainant until he was back. The complainant was kept in the apartment for about
three hours during which she was raped by the three men. Then, when Jusup came back she
informed him about what happened, but he did not care and sent her home. The complainant
claims that at this point she realized that the violence against her would not stop and when
her mother died sometime afterwards, she decided to leave the country with her son. The
complainant also claims that as her son was aware of the violence she was suffering. He
wanted to join the rebels in the mountains, which was another reason for her to decide to
leave the country in order to prevent this from happening.
2.3. On 7 January 2013, the complainants entered Switzerland and filed an application for
asylum. On 22 July 2013, their asylum application was rejected by the Federal Office for
Migration (FOM)6 as it considered that Z.K.’s assertions were contradictory and diverged in
essential points, including the date of the arrest of her husband (in the first interview she said
it was in mid-September 2008 and in a later interview she said it was in the beginning of
August 2008); the place where she was first raped by Jusup (in one interview she said it was
in an apartment and in another one she said that it was in an alley); and the date of the last
attack she suffered (in a first interview she said that it took place in the beginning of
1
2
3
4
5
6
2
The second complainant had reached majority age at the time of the initial submission to the Committee
. He is the son of the first complainant of her first marriage.
The complaint does not contain any details regarding the complainant’s first marriage.
The complaint does not contain further information on this allegation.
The complaint does not contain further information on this allegation.
The complaint does not indicate to which body the battalion belongs to.
The complainant provided an unofficial translation of the FOM’s decision.